





















IMMIGRATION. 


/ SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 

IF SO, UPON WHAT BASIS? 

READ BEFORE THE “CENTURY CLUB” OF SEATTLE, 
WASHINGTON, JANUARY 31, 1902. 

Br MRS. JOHN B. ALLEN. 

Oui foi efathers, fleeing from political and religious oppression, 
'declaiing that all men were born free and equal, in the pursuit of 
life, liberty and happiness, have heartily welcomed to this land of 
the free and home of the brave, all who chose to make this their 
home, no matter of what nationality, or of what degree of intelli¬ 
gence or prosperity the indigent and ignorant were as welcome as 
the piosperous and cultivated. All who would swear allegiance to 
the lav s and constitution of the United States were given an equal 
■status, and a voice in the government and a place in its councils. 

America has been the asylum of the poor—the discontented— 
the unfortunate—as well as the rich, the prosperous and the culti¬ 
vated. All were given the greatest liberty, and freedom of speech 
and of action. No one questioned of their past or asked of their fu¬ 
ture intentions. Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholics, Atheist 
and Polygamist were equally welcome. 

The stranger who wished only to sojourn for a time, and not 
1 enounce his allegiance to his mother country, came and went with¬ 
out restrictions or any police regulations. In many states a sim¬ 
ple declaration of intention to become a citizen enables a man to 
cast his vote at municipal and state elections, and his ballot was re¬ 
ceived as readily as those statesmen who were native born, and 
versed in constitutional law. 

Up to 1875 , the exclusion of immigrants was confined to idiots, 
insane persons and paupers. Our penal and reformatory institu¬ 
tions were being crowded with criminals. Our insane asylums with 
those mentally unbalanced. Utah was being populated with polyg¬ 
amists gathered from European cities—houses of prostitution re¬ 
plenished by recruits from the immigrant class, our charitable 
institutions ovedburdened with care of the indigent and helpless 
poor. After a strong and determined effort, the class of rejected 
immigrants was enlarged to exclude, idiots, insane, paupers, those 
under sentence for crime other than political, or growing out of po¬ 
litical offenses, and women imported for purposes of prostitution. 

Although it was very evident that the United States was not 
only acquiring a vast army of the willing and industrious, yet 
through their lack of intelligence and means of support, were help¬ 
less to care for themselves—but were also being made the dumping 
ground of the thoroughly incompetent, as well as vicious and men¬ 
tally incapacitated. 

All efforts to restrict immigration iseemed abortive. The fun¬ 
damental principle that this was the home for the poor, helpless and 
down-trodden, was so well established that any amendment seemed 
to arouse the opposition of those who could point to similar exam¬ 
ples of those who had risen above their environments, and shaking 
off their shackles, had proven to be able, competent and honored. 

Notwithstanding all recognized the danger—could see the evils 
resulting from this promiscuous immigration, but little was chang- 


2 


IMMIGRATION, SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 



ed in the statutes, on this subject, untfi the organization of labor 
was strong enough to demand that the general custom of contractors- 
and corporations, bringing in immigrants as a body “under con¬ 
tract for labor” should cease, and in 1882 the Exclusion of Chinese 
wa^ enacted, and in 1885 an act was passed, making it unlawful for 
any person or corporation, to prepay the passage of any immigrants 
under any contract “parol or special,” “express or implied,” made 
previous to the importation—making only the exception, for for¬ 
eigners to bring their secretaries or servants; and skilled artisans 
who might be needed to inaugurate a new industry. The other 
amendments noted are for the organization of a Commissioner of 
Immigration, and to grant authority and assign rules for his guid¬ 
ance. The one notable amendment was the granting of authority 
for the Commissioner of Immigration to contract with State Boards 
of Charity, to care for the helpless and indigent upon arrival, recog¬ 
nizing the fact that State or National aid was needed, so numerous 
were these classes. About this time also was enacted the law to 
oblige steamship companies to export those refused admission, with¬ 
out charge to the immigrant or to the U. S. These vast hordes 
flocking to this country, who were entirely unfit for self-support or 
for citizenship, made our statesmen seek diligently for a remedy, 
and some restriction, which would eliminate the most objectionable. 
It was apparent then as now that the political agitation of Europe 
and attempted punishment of such offenders, were throwing into 
our body politic large numbers of political refugees—Anarchists, 
Socialists and Nihilists, who found this country not only a safe asy¬ 
lum, but a fertile soil for propagandizing their peculiar dectrines 
and beliefs. Our lax laws enabled them to organize, educate and 
graduate from the malcontents the illiterate and the lawless, an army 
with no regard for our institutions often in open defiance of our 
laws, even to plot for the overthrow of official authority. Our 
statesmen recognized an equal danger to our republican institu¬ 
tions from the over-educated, the extreme philosopher, the advanced 
free-thinker, as from the illiterate, the profligate and the idle ne’er- 
do-well. These elements congregated in our large cities and popu¬ 
lated what Ballington Booth has so graphically described in “Darker 
New York.” They struggled with the question, each session of 
congress, trying to evolve some restrictions that would eliminate, at 
least some of the objectionable elements that were pouring into this 
country, but beyond a more specific declaration of the powers, and 
modis operand! of the Commissioner of Immigration, and holding 
the transportation companies to greater responsibility, giving the 
Secretary of the Treasury almost the powers of the Czar, nothing 
was evolved. Such statesmen as Senators Hale, Hoar, Hill, Wash¬ 
burn, Quay and Lodge and Representatives McMillan, Milliken, Mc¬ 
Creary, Owen, Wm. A. Stone, Bertholdt introduced bills giving their 
best ability to their construction and advocacy, to at least restrict 
the worst and most dangerous elements, to find them defeated. 

It would weary you to do more than glance at a few of the 
more important attempts—those which come the nearest to being 
enacted into law especially directed to the exclusion of Anarchists. 

In 1888 Representative Adams, of Chicago, soon after the coun¬ 
try had been shocked by the Haymarket riot, introduced a bill for- 
the removal of dangerous aliens from the territories of the United 
States. This did not go farther than the records of the House. Sen¬ 
ator Mitchell, the following year, 1889, introduced a bill “To Prohibit 
Objectionable Foreign Immigration, Encourage Desirable Immigra¬ 
tion, Defend American Institutions, Encourage American Labor.”' 
One can scarcely understand how there could be considered any¬ 
thing objectionable in such a bill, but it was violently attacked and 
died aborning. The subject was considered so important that both 


IF SO, UPON WHAT BASIS? 


5 


Senate and House appointed special committees on immigration, 
composed of their ablest members. These committees held joint 
sessions in the intervals of congress, and framed the result of such, 
investigations into a mild restriction act, which invariably was de¬ 
feated. In 1891 Mr. Oakes introduced a bill “prohibiting from land¬ 
ing in the United States Idiots, Insane, Paupers, Persons Liable to 
Become Public Charge, Persons Who Had Been Convicted of Fel¬ 
ony, or Other Infamous Crime, Polygamists and Anarchists.” But, 
although ably championed, when finally enacted, the word “anar¬ 
chist” was dropped. Those determined to rid the country of this 
dangerous element, kept bravely renewing the effort, and Senator- 
Chandler, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Immigration, in 
1893 proposed a bill which as one restriction, excluded “Persons be¬ 
longing to Societies which favor or justify the unlawful destruction 
of property or life.” This, like the other, failed to pass. The bill 
which excluding Anarchists came the nearest to becoming a law, 
was framed by Senator David B. Hill, of New York, who was then 
(in 1893) Chairman of the Senate Committee of Immigration. This 
bill was endorsed and revised by the Hon. John G. Carlyle, Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury, one of our ablest Constitutional lawyers and 
Secretary Olney of the State Department, another constitutional 
lawyer of national repute. President Carnot, of France, had been 
assassinated. The revulsion had placed restriction of immigration 
in the platforms of both parties. The select committee of both 
houses, after exhausting investigation, had reported unanimously in 
favor of exclusion of Anarchists. The bill providing that “no alien- 
Anarchist shall hereafter be permitted to land at any port in the 
United States or be admitted into the United States, but this shall 
not be construed so as to apply to political refugees or political of¬ 
fenders.” This passed both houses with slight variations which, 
threw it into a Conference Committee and it came back promptly 
for final passage. Senator Sherman insisted that not only should 
alien-Anarchists be prohibited from landing, but those persons 
should be deported who were not of good moral character, that 
were not attached to the principles of our government and were not 
attached to the principles of our government and were not disposed 
to the peace and good order of Society.” But Senator Hill urged 
that the committee did not attempt at this time to legislate against 
any naturalized citizen, and mentioned the fact, of which the gov¬ 
ernment had received official notice, that a large body of Anarchists, 
500 or more, were preparing to immigrate to this country, and it was 
very desirable to secure this legislation in time to prevent their 
landing. When the bill having almost unanimously passed the 
Senate reached the house, objection was made by the Hon. John De- 
Witt Warner of New York, that there was no definition of “anarch¬ 
ist” in the bill. The debate over this question was as long and ex¬ 
citing as some discussions in our Women’s Clubs, and you may find 
it interesting to follow it in detail. Suffice to say, the discussion 
was so prolonged, no one being able to offer an amendment embody¬ 
ing a satisfactory definition of Anarchist, the bill failed of passage, 
notwithstanding the strong popular sentiment that there was immi¬ 
nent danger from those organized foes to our republican institutions. 
Fearing we may be equally unsuccessful in defining the word “an¬ 
archist,” I will give you the definition of Representative Wm. A. 
Stone of Pennsylvania. “That any person who shall belong to, or 
who shall be appointed, designated, or employed by any Society or 
Organization existing in this or any foreign country, which provides 
in writing or by verbal agreement, understanding or countenance, 
for the taking of human life unlawfully, or for the unlawful de¬ 
struction of buildings or other property, where the loss of life would 
be the probable destruction of said property, will be deemed an An- 


4 


IMMIGRATION, SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 

archist.” Senator Hill’s definition was: “An Anarchist * * does 

not believe in any* civil government whatever* * * he believes in 

no form of civil or social government,—is a disturber of the peace of 
society. He believes in social chaos; he believes in having no gov¬ 
ernment whatever with which to guide humanity.” Senator Hoar 
expressed the opinion of the wisest and ablest statesmen of our 
congress and country when he said: “We have the absolute right to 
exclude persons of other countries from coming here, and we have a 
right to put upon them the burden of showing their fitness, not mere¬ 
ly in the light of their past conduct, but their fitness, judging them 
by their purpose, judging them by their opinions, judging them 
by the nature of their pursuits and thoughts, and the burden of 
showing that they come with safety and benefit to the country to 
which they come.” “The Supreme Court has held that every sov¬ 
ereign nation has the power as inherent in sovereignty and essential 
to self-preservation to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its 
domain, or to admit them only upon such conditions as it may see 
tit to prescribe.” (See case Nickimura Ekin vs. United States and 
Charles A. Carter.) This battle royal against the over-educated 
alien was during 1893, and was followed by an equally famous con¬ 
test known as the Lodge Bill, which was conducted during the .Con¬ 
gress of 1894, and failing of passage was renewed in the Congress of 
1896, and finally carried through by an overwhelming majority. The 
statistics show an overwhelming overflow and influx of illiterates, 
and those entirely unable to provide for themselves. The hard times 
from 1893 to 1897 had carried such wholesale depression of indus¬ 
try, as to create an army of unemployed, that were clamoring 
through their Labor Organizations, for restriction of immigration, 
and pouring their petitions and demands upon their representatives. 
The popular form of petition was to limit the annual immigration 
to 50,000. It was well known that aliens were coming across the 
borders for temporary employment, on our public works as well as 
in private enterprises, and that those who came from Europe to 
work for a season without being naturalized, and returned to their 
native country at the close of the season were termed “Birds of 
Passage.” These aliens found it less expensize living in Europe, 
so leaving their families, returned at the close of the season with 
their wages, to remain during the winter, to come again the next 
season to repeat the experiment, never intending to become citizns 
or permanently remain in this country, and continued so doing un¬ 
til many were well known to the immigration officers. The number 
of these birds of passage had increased until it was estimated that 
11,000 had returned in one year (1895) and transportation compa¬ 
nies estimated that fifty per cent of foreigners coming to this coun¬ 
try returned at the close of the season. When the immigration was 
largely from the British Isles, Norway and Sweden, Germany and 
France, the percentage of illiteracy and “Birds of Passage” had been 
low, but with the increase of immigration from southern and south¬ 
eastern Europe the ratio of illiterates had largely increased, and 
still more so with the ration of the “Birds of Passage.” The report 
of the Commissioner of Immigration for 1897 showed the number of 
immigrants 263,709, number of illiterates 66,314. Percantage of illit¬ 
erates from Scandinavian states of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 
1 per cent; Germany less than 3 per cent; England about 5 per 
cent; Ireland, 7 per cent and Southern and Southeastern Europe 
over 60 per cent. The report of 1901 gives number of immigrants 
487,918, number of illiterates 117,587. I have not been able to se¬ 
cure the data for all the years, showing a proportion of illiterates, 


IF SO, UPON WHAT BASIS? 


5 


but find this 
1856 to 1901: 

table showing the 

immigration for 

each year from 

Period. 

Immigrants. 

Period. 

Immigrants. 

1856. 


1879.... 

.177,826 

1857. 

. . . .245,945 

1880.... 

.457,257 

1858. 

. . . .119,501 

1881. . . . 

'.669,431 

1859. 

-118,616 

1882. . .. 

.788,992 

1860. 

-150,237 

1883.... 

.603,322 

1861. 

. . . . 89,724 

1884.... 

.518,592 

186?. 

. . . . 89,007 

1885.... 

.395,346 

1865. 


1886 

334 203 

1864. 

. . . .193,195 

1887.... 

.490,109 

1865. 

-247,453 

1 S88... . 

.546,8S9 

1866. 


1889 

444 427 

1867. 

. . . .310,965 

1890. . . . 

.455.302 

180. 

- 138,840 

1891. . . . 

.560,319 

180*. 

. .. .352,768 

1S92... . 

.479,663 

ISP'-. ... 

. . . .387,203 

1893. . . . 

.439,739 

1871. 


1894. . . . 

.285.631 

187:1. 

. . . .404,806 

1895... . 

.258,536 

1873. 

. . . .459,803 

1896. . . . 

.243,267 

18 74 . 

. . . .313,339 

1897. . . . 

.230,832 

1875. 

. . . .227,498 

1898. . . . 

.229,299 

1876. 

. . . .169,986 

1899. . . . 

.311,715 

1877. 

. . . .141,857 

1900... . 

.448,572 

1878. 

. . . .138,469 

1901. . . . 

.487,018 


When one understands that the average annual immigration from 
1 f £5 to 1895 have been 435,085, that these ratios of illiteracy were 
increasing and the “Birds of Passage” were absorbing our wealth 
and transporting it, adding nothing but their labor to our common 
wealth, one can readily understand how our citizen labor condemned 
the present laws. All were for restriction of immigration, but the 
Herculean task of framing a law that would be of benefit, and not 
injury, was undertaken by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, assisted 
by the ablest minds of the Senate and House, and finally the simp¬ 
lest restrictions only were engrossed in the bill, “excluding all per¬ 
sons physically able and over 16 years of age who cannot read or 
write the English language, or some other language, and excepted 
the parents and grand parents, wife and minor children, of one 
qualified to enter who would vouch for them and their support.” 

“Also making it unlawful for any male alien who has not in¬ 
good faith made his declaration to become a citizen of the United. 
States, to be employed on any public work of the LTnited States, or 
to come regularly and habitually into the United States, by land or 
water, for the purpose of engaging in any mechanical trade, or 
manual labor for wages or salary, and returning from time to time 
to a foreign country.” Another section making it “unlawful for any 
person, partnership, company or corporation to employ such aliens.” 
One needs to follow the debate extending over weeks and even months 
of these years from 1894 to 1897 to realize how difficult it is to frame 
a law to no part of which someone of 400 representatives will not 
object. All agreed the immigration laws were too elastic, that we 
as a commonwealth were being imposed upon by an undesirable 
class of immigrants, but very few wished to restrict immigration 
entirely, but no one was willing to acknowledge he did not wish any 
restriction beyond the present law. So they threshed the question of 
“Who is an anarchist?” With the hundreds of thousands of acres 
left still untilled, with the great possibilities of growth of industry, 
of mining, of manifold arts and trades, but few would say we could 
not receive and care for many millions of sober, intelligent, indus¬ 
trious immigrants, and that with the return of prosperous times 
















































6 


IMMIGRATION, SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 


we would not need them. This bill finally passed by a large majority, 
and went to the president, Grover Cleveland, who vetoed it. As a 
unique specimen of reasoning I would recommend you to read the 
whole message, but I will only quote a paragraph: 

“In my opinion it is infinitely more safe to admit an hundred 
thousand immigrants who, though unable to read or write * * * * 

than one of those unruly agitators and enemies of governmental 
control who can not only read and write but delight in arousing by 
inflammatory speech the illiterate. Violence and disorder do not 
originate with illiterate laborers. They are rather the victims of 
the educated agitator.” 

If one is going to handle dynamite, he does not accumulate in¬ 
flammable material. Inasmuch as we already have illiterates—in 
the large masses—ready for the educated agitator, it would seem 
unwise to the ordinary mind to add to the inflammable material. 
He thought “great injustice might be done the brothers and sisters 
of the capable immigrant if they could not be admitted with the 
illiterate parents and grandparents—wives and children—ignoring 
the fact that a person of ordinary intelligence, between sixteen and 
forty-five years of age, could qualify themselves in three months 
to enter, without leaning on the ability of the fortunate immigrant, 
who could read and write twenty-five words of our Constitution. 

He thought it a dangerous precedent for the country of nations 
to declare it “a crime for an alien to come regularly and habitually 
into the United States to obtain work from private parties, if such 
alien returns from time to time to a foreign country, and to consti¬ 
tute such employment a crime.” 

So the long struggle of those who saw the abuses—recognized 
the danger—and framed the mildest restriction possible, was ended 
—and we have continued to receive the thousands annually—only 
eliminating idiots, insane, paupers, or those likely to be a public 
charge—persons suffering from a contagious disease—persons who 
Lave been convicted of felony—polygamists, and contract laborers— 
especially stating that this shall not exclude persons convicted 
of a political offense—notwithstanding said political offense may be 
designated, as a felony, crime, infamous crime or misdemeanor, in¬ 
volving moral turpitude by the laws of the land, from whence he came 
or by the court convicting. 

We have gone on receiving and welcoming—even sitting idly by 
Avhile such sentiments as this were promulgated by the press and 
from platform: 

(This was uttered at a public gathering at Cooper’s Union, New 
York City, on March 17, 1890, at a gathering to celebrate the anni¬ 
versary of the Paris Commune.) 

“I look forward with a great deal of joy and satisfaction in the 
hope that ere long the scenes that were enacted in Paris will be. 
enacted in New York, and that the streets of New York will be 
covered with dead bodies and the gutters will flow with blood and 
the houses will be a burning mass.” 

We have sat patiently and idly by while the educated agitators, 
have instilled their diabolical principles, into the receptive masses, 
.and then stood aghast when our beloved President was shot down 
when extending his hand to his assassin. Shall immigration be 
restricted? Shall anarchists be convicted or deported? Who is an 
anarchist? are living questions of today, and members of Con¬ 
gress vie with each other to see who can introduce the most extreme 
measure. While others more calm and conservative remember that 
this is a government for freedom of speech and a free press, by 
a free peopple and will endeavor to curtail the license which is 
abused, not imperil the liberty of thought and action, so necessary in 
a Republic. 


IF SO, UPON WHAT BASIS? 


7 


We will watch the discussion with interest, and see from all 
this righteous indignation what shall be evolved. 

It is well for us of the Pacific Coast, to study even with laborious 
detail the liberal laws and generous execution of them in admitting 
to the Atlantic seaports the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed of 
Europe without regard to their intellectual attainments, their relig¬ 
ious belief or their political heresies—and then turn to refresh our 
memories with the history of immigration to the Pacific Coast from 
the Asiatic countries. 

We find in China, a country which in morals, literature, vastness 
of empire, wealth of production, ability to be self supporting, has 
a history which equals that of any nation. We know and understand 
so little of it that an endowment fund of $100,000 has been set aside 
by one of our eastern colleges to found a chair for the study of China. 

So self-sufficient were they, that they resisted with all the re¬ 
sources at their command, the encrcachments of other nations. They 
wished no comity of nations; they wished no commercial relations; 
no merhcants—exchange, no missionaries. They produced for their 
400,000,000 all they thought they needed. Confucius’ teaching was 
good enough for them, and they wished no missionaries to tell them 
•of the Christ. Building the great wall to keep out the robbers 
from the west, they resisted successfully for centuries any invasion 
of importance from the sea. 

England was the first to gain any foothold, and commercial ag¬ 
grandizement was her motive. As early as 1839, she forced her 
trade in opium upon the Chinese by the force of arms. 

Securing more foothold she was engaged in a second subjugation 
from 1856 to 1S60. The United States sent the Hon. Caleb Cushing 
as a friendly ambassador to negotiate terms of peace between China 
and England, and he was followed by the Hon. Wm. B. Reed, and 
he by the Hon. Anson Burlingame, in 1861. So diplomatic was the 
latter that he succeeded in winning the confidence of the Chinese 
government, and effected many treaties, enlarging the commercial 
relations not only with the United States but other nations. 

When in 1867 he was about to return to the United States he 
was urged to head a delegation of ambassadors to perfect a treaty 
with the United States and to place China on a basis of friendly 
relations. So successful was he that the treaty known as the Bur¬ 
lingame treaty was enacted and we were placed under as formal 
a compact of friendly relations with China as with any other nation. 
The treaty declared that “the United States of America and the 
Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable 
right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual 
advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens 
and subjects for the purposes of curiosity, of trade or as permanent 
residents” and added—the “high contracting parties therefore join 
in reprobating any other than a voluntary emigration for these pur¬ 
poses.” 

The effectual separation of the Pacific Coast, from the settled 
parts of the United States, and the seat of government, during the 
Civil War, had caused not only much inconvenience but uneasiness, 
and when the war was closed the interest of Congress was easily 
obtained, to granting a generous subsidy to those who had planned 
the Union & Central Pacific railroad, thus connecting the Pacific 
with the Atlantic Coast. There was no difficulty in procuring labor 
to build to the Rocky mountains, but the population on the Pacific 
Coast was so limited, transportation so expensive and opportunity 
for advancement of labor so great on the Atlantic sea coast that 
the work of building the western end was delayed and seemed im¬ 
possible. 

By this time the commercial relations with China had been so 


8 


IMMIGRATION, SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 


established that Messrs. Huntington, Crocker and Stanford suc¬ 
ceeded in inducing the Chinese companies to bring them laborers 
from China. Naturally they were from the lowest element—the 
poorest, most servile class. The well to do, the higher classes did 
not care to leave home. They were well satisfied in every respect, 
so that except a very few merchants and managers, our Chinese 
immigration was of the lowest order in China. They came for the 
monetary interest. Their love of country, was such they wanted to 
go back, expected to go back, and would not come in those early 
days under any agreement except that they should, dead or alive, 
go back. 

We gave them less than ten years to get acquainted—to over¬ 
come the prejudice of centuries, or to learn of our Republican gov¬ 
ernment, or grow any affection for us that would induce them to 
make their home with us. 

California, so rich with natural resources of mountain, lake and 
river, of soil and climate, needing only a population sober and in¬ 
dustrious, welcoming the native son of every other clime, no mat¬ 
ter how illiterate or lazy, began to cultivate an intolerance to the 
quiet, patient, sober, industrious Chinaman that cannot be under¬ 
stood by any unprejudiced rational person, and is today excused 
by no one. The laws of California, against the Chinese during the 
years 1870 to 1880 are a disgrace and a burning shame to a civilized 
nation. They forbade their ever being naturalized. Well, as they 
never had known the ecstacy of casting a ballot, they did not demur, 
they would rather be citizens of China, than the United States. 
They prohibited them from owning a foot of land in city or 
country, mine or farm, not even enough to build a house on or raise 
a garden. So the wealth}' landlord looks to it that John Chinaman 
pays the highest rents of the Pacific Coast for the poorest accom¬ 
modations. 

The United States in those years gave a homestead, a pre¬ 
emption claim, a timber culture claim, perhaps, if managed well, 
all three to each peasant of Europe who would come here and re¬ 
side and do very little else, and sometimes not much of that on 
these claims. 

California establishes a wise and beneficient public school 
system for all children, no matter what nationality. She prohibits 
the Chinese youth from attending her public schools. 

The United States Congress cannot secure a law shutting out 
the illiterates, who cannot read or write the English or any other 
known language. 5Tou never saw a Chinese coolie on American 
soil, who could not read and write his own language when he ar¬ 
rived, and was so anxious to learn English that he would take his- 
evenings after his twelve to fourteen hours of daily labor to go to 
school, and pay from his small wages, the philanthropic mission 
teacher, a high tuition to spend an hour or two teaching him. 

No European immigrant was ever instructed how he should 
dress, cut his hair or his clothes, but California laws proposed to 
cut every Chinaman’s hair short, because they knew that it was an 
insignia of their loyalty to their religion, and to their country to 
wear a queue. We who had for years forced our religious mission¬ 
aries into China to preach the teachings of the meek and lowly 
Jesus, allowed our hoodlums and sandlotters with impunity, to beat 
and abuse the “Heathen Chinee” upon any occasion when mischiev¬ 
ousness, or viciousness desired. 

We well remember the assault in a neighboring city of our own 
state, where the Chinese without notice or warning, even sufficient 
to return the clothes from their laundries, gather their belongings or 
collect their debts, were driven en masse, out miles from town onto 
an open prairie without food or shelter, huddled in a drenching rain. 


IP SO, UPON WHAT BASIS? 


9 


storm, guarded by this lawless mob. One man who acted as guard 
drove the cook from his kitchen, and left for several days his wife 
with a three days old infant to cook her own meals or starve. We 
well remember how the best citizens of this city stood guard for 
days as a “posse comitatus” to assist the courts, to protect the 
Chinese subjects from mob violence; how some of our society women, 
kept a revolver within reach of her hand, day and night for the 
days her husband acted as special policeman, to protect her cook 
from any attempt, of the sandlotter, to frighten him away. The 
courts were upheld, hut the governor had to put the city under 
martial law for several weeks. To be sure the United States had 
to pay $15,000,000 indemnity for this little play spell, because the 
treaty with China declares that her “citizens shall be accorded the 
same privileges as those of the most favored nation;” but as long as 
it was not taxed to Seattle and Tacoma, it made but little impression. 

In 1879, about ten years after the Burlingame treaty, when we 
could count scarcely 100,000 Chinese in the country,with the com¬ 
mercial relations scarcely established, with the Pacific Coast look¬ 
ing to the Occident for its commerce, with every industry needing 
the patient labor, with millions of tillable land uncultivated, with 
mountains full of mines, with forests uncut, waters teeming with 
fish, with households without servants, and transportation com¬ 
panies asking $100 to transport an European immigrant from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, the first exclusion law was passed, without 
any notice to the other contracting nation, against all comity of 
nations or law of treaties, by a vote of ayes 155, n6es 72 in the 
House, and by ayes 39, noes 27, in the Senate. We are pleased to 
notice such names as Roscoe Conkling, Geo. F. Hoar and Stanley 
Mathews leading the opposition, and we grieve to see James G. 
Blaine and John H. Mitchell of Oregon advocating the measure. 

I would like to follow some of his reasoning, it sounds so strange 
from a statesman as broad and liberal, as wise and practical as 
James G. Blaine. 

1st. The fear that the Pacific Coast would be overrun with 
Mongolians, to the exclusion of Americans, because China had 
400,000,000 population. They had then been coming nearly 30 years 
and the census showed less than 100,000, an average of between 
4000 and 5000 per year. Compare that with the European immigra¬ 
tion of an annual average of 435,085. 

He compared the European emigrant with his family, owning 
their own homes, etc.—the laws of the United States as well as 
California forbade the Chinese to own land. How could they bo 
expected to build houses on rented land. 

Did not bring wives and children. Most of those who attempted 
to bring their wives found them refused admission as being pros¬ 
titutes. 

You will find the idea of home, of family, of relation of children 
to parent, no more strongly inculcated in any class of foreigners 
than those of the Chinese. Chinese children first support and obey 
father and mother, not until twenty-one years of age, but as long as 

their parents live. 

Every Chinaman who can pay his debts and have $300 assets, 
is to be married, even though he live in America, and his father 
selects his bride, and has her ready for his son, whom nothing will 
hinder from going to China to be married, even though he is allowed 
but one year to be absent, and runs the risk of being shut out on 
his return, if his sailing vessel is too slow, and reaches port after 
the year is expired. 

Mr. Blaine disclosed himself as opposed to Chinese coming here; 
opposed to making them citizens; opposed to making them voters. 


IO 


IMMIGRATION, SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 


then declares he is opposed to having a non voting alien element in 
the country. 

Will not let them own land, cannot expect them to build houses 
on rented land; allow custom officers to consider every Chinese 
woman married or single a prostitute, and then point with emphasis 
to the fact that “there are no peasant cottages inhabited by Chi¬ 
nese and their families.” 

Then he argues against Chinese cheap labor. Any one living 
'on the Pacific Coast today knows that there is no one who values 
labor for what it will bring in the market more than a Chinaman. 
While he may work cheaply while he does not know much how to 
work, no one knows better than he how to value his labor when he 
has learned, or better how to hold it up to market value. 

If Mr. Blaine had paid from $20 to $40 per month for a cook, 
and had him leave you because he could go on one of Uncle Sam’s 
transports or Revenue Cutters and get $60 to $75 per month; he 
would not call that cheap labor I am sure. 

Nor if he was a farmer of eastern Washington and must have 
a cook for a threshing crew, and pay $2.00, $2.50, and even $3.00 
per day for such domestic services. To be sure the Chinaman will 
do the work of two or three women, but with wheat from $.25 to $.50 
per bushel it’s a heav tax on the poor rancher. 

Then he suggests that you cannot work a man who must have 
bread .and butter, and meat, and would like beer, on the wages of 
a man who can live on rice. 

But why not rice as well as macaroni? 

The exclusion act of 1879, was vetoed by President Hayes, who ap¬ 
pointed three commissioners, James P». Angell, President Michigan 
University, John F. Swift, of California and Wm. Henry Trescot of 
South Carolina, to visit China and negotiate a restriction treaty, 
which they did, one covering emigration from China to United 
States, the other protecting the commercial relations between China 
and the United States. They had but little difficulty in negotiating 
this treaty of exclusion for the Chinese government has always been 
loath to part with her subjects, and wished only to protect the 
rights of those already here. 

Laborers were forbidden entry absolutely, no matter how intelli¬ 
gent or moral, skilled or unskilled, whether could speak English 
or not, if he could not prove he would not labor with his hands, 
within the period of one year. 

Provides how those already in the United States can return to 
China by obtaining a certificate and return to the United States 
within the period of one year. 

This act allows other Chinese subjects, other than laborers, to 
come upon a certificate from Chinese government, stating whom 
they are, etc. Upon the face of this act it does not seem so obnox¬ 
ious, but each session of Congress amused itself amending this act 
and so burdening it with rules and restrictions that it was well pre¬ 
pared when 1892 came to pass an extension act, for ten years, and 
leave it so hedged about, that it was nearly as easy for a camel, to 
pass through the eye of a needle, as a Chinaman to return to the 
United States, no matter how well he spoke English, read and 
wrote it. It would be laughable if it were not so pitiful. 

At first a written certificate, describing the individual was 
demanded, then his picture must be attached, and now it is pro¬ 
posed to have four pictures, and any amount of red tape. Chinese 
officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for pleasure or 
curiosity are supposed to enter without trouble, having first secured 
a certificate from their own government, but the rules and regula¬ 
tions grow more and more complex. A student must be one pre¬ 
pared to enter a college. A merchant must never labor with his 


IF SO, UPON WHAT BASIS? 


11 

hands, or he is subject to deportation. When seeking for a certifi¬ 
cate to go to Pliina.expeetingto return, he must prove by two wit¬ 
nesses other than Chinese that he has a thousand dollars to his 
credit and has not earned it by labor. 

Not long since several hundred Chinese who were en route to 
Mexico were deported from San Francisco, because the officials 
feared some might wander back into the United States, and our Mex¬ 
ican border is long and not easily guarded. 

An eastern immigrant whose entry is in question, is boarded 
by the United States or the transportation companies. A poor 
Chinaman who attempts to enter, even if he can prove he has lived 
in the United States for twenty-five years and has an ordinary 
English education, can be imprisoned at hard labor for one year 
and then deported. 

A merchant who fails, and needs to do household service to fill 
his depleted purse, is liable to be imprisoned for a year and de¬ 
ported as being a laborer in the country without a certificate. 

A Chinese merchant is supposed to be allowed to bring his wife 
and minor children, but the burden of proof of marriage is made 
so. heavy that almost any man shrinks from bringing his wife for 
fear she will be considered a prostitute, branded as such and deported. 

A Chinese merchant of Walla Walla, who had done business 
there for nearly a quarter of a century, went to China and attempted 
to bring his minor boys into this country to teach them his trade, 
and educate them to manage his business. He died on board ship, 
before boat landed at Port Townsend, and the Collector of Customs 
would not admit these minor children, even though chaperoned by 
their dead father, although an ex-judge of the Supreme Court, know¬ 
ing the father, offered to be appointed their guardian, and vouch for 
their being merchants and not laborers. 

Our good cooks, who converse fluently in English and under¬ 
stand our laws and government better than three-fourths the foreign 
voters may go to China, get caught on a sailing vessel delayed be¬ 
yond the year by untoward winds, land in Victoria by paying $50.00 
per capita and write pitious letters in English to their employers to 
influence the obdurate authorities to allow them to enter and do 
their cooking, but the decision of the Collector of Customs and Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury is final, and knows no exceptions, and 
Madame can do her own cooking. 

The Pacific Coast Statesman, impelled by Uabor Unions, are a 
unit for Chinese exclusion. They will see contractors fail for lack 
ot reasonable labor, paying from $2.50 to $10.00 per day for eight 
hours work; mines remain closed for lack of laborers who demand 
$2.50 to $3.50 per day for unskilled labor; railroads hampered and 
troubled to make repairs and extensions even with their facilities for 
transporting from the Atlantic coast, and still vote to exclude immi¬ 
gration from the Occident. 

The possibilities of Wealth on this Pacific Coast whose resources 
have scarcely been begun in its possible development, for lack of 
labor—not cheap coolie labor, but reasonably intelligent, and at rea¬ 
sonable wages, is incalculable. 

And what shall we householders say of our needs, for domestic 
service? I do not need to illustrate to you our necessities or suffer¬ 
ings from the lack of not only competent service, but often any 
service, but to have it of record will call your attention to what A. H. 
Orout, labor commissioner in charge of the free employment bur¬ 
eau of Seattle says in his January, 1902, report on this point. 

The one object which causes the most perplexity and worry in 
the homes of our well-to-do citizens is that of domestic help. Seat¬ 
tle is a young and rapidly growing city at the border of a large 


12 


IMMIGRATION, SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 


country, and far removed from centers of population, which means 
that as long as these conditions exist the demand for domestic 
help will be greater than the supply; and notwithstanding the fact 
that we endeavored to increase the number of domestics by drawing 
from the more populous districts of the East, and have been suc¬ 
cessful to some extent, yet we are daily reminded of the fact that 
many of our citizens are “still without help.” 

Our generous husbands, ready to hand the purse to us for 
domestic uses, still see us pay three times the wages we should 
for irregular, uncertain, incompetent service, putting up with every¬ 
thing endurable rather than be left to struggle along with the 
whole problem. We see a larger majority of the wage earners utterly 
unable to afford a servant, whose wives stagger under the load of 
household drudgery, much against the husband’s wish, but entirely 
beyond his power to provide even with the high wages of the coast. 

It is simply a question of the demand exceeding the supply. 
At first there was not a pereeptable depreciation of servants, then 
comes lower transportation rates which helped the European immi¬ 
grants westward, then the Japanese began to come in, and we 
could breathe a little easier, for while they were ignorant of Eng¬ 
lish or American ways, or household service, still for small wages, 
they would come and learn and particularly, if they could attend 
evening school. To be sure they would leave you at an hour’s notice 
if they learned a little, and could get higher wages from your near¬ 
est neighbor or closest friend. 

But the secretary of the treasury soon issued a circular which 
exported the little brown men, nearly as fast as they could come. 

We have no Japanese restriction law. I suppose the contract 
labor law must have been stretched to cover this immigration. 

The Chinese exclusion Act has been in force nearly twenty 
years. It cost the government last year $160,684.67, which in twenty 
years would amount to the enormous sum of $3,213,693.40 to say 
nothing of the expense of courts and officers, of jails where these im¬ 
migrants have been put at hard labor, pending deportation; noth¬ 
ing of the indirect damages and taxation by lack of their labor. 

None of this amount expended for their care, sick or well, 
was expended to better their condition save to assist a country whose 
deaths from starvation have exceeded any country on the face of 
the globe in the past twenty years—simply used to patrol our bound¬ 
aries—to support an army of Chinese inspectors, and pay necessary 
expenses—to hunt down and export out of the country the only 
class of immigrants with no illiterates, no paupers, no beggars 
and no anarchists among them.. 

The total immigration of all classes from China from 1885 to 


J900, was: 

1885 18S6 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 

22 40 10 26 118 1716 2836 _ 473- 

1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 

1170 539 1441 3363 2071 1660 1247 2459 

And from Japan: 

1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 

1380 1931 1150 1110 1526 2230 2844 12635 5247 

As a contrast to this let us glance at the record of the Atlantic 
seaboard for 1901. 

Number of immigrants . 473,653. 

Number of illiterates. 117,587. 

Amount expended ..$522,602.44 


not counting $225,000 for buildings on Ellis island. 

Out of this there was expended for care of the sick and help¬ 
less $73,148 in the hospitals at New York. You never heard of a 





IF SO, UPON WHAT BASIS?' 


- r 3 


dollar being expended to care for a sick or needy Chinaman at fhe 
public expense in the history of the Pacific coast. 

On the other hand the exhorbitant wages demanded have obliged 
householders to secure as much work as possible. A house which 
should have three servants must do with two, and where two 
should be employed the income of the family will only allow one, 
so that discontent and restlessness has grown with the employed, 
constant change by the employed and consequent inconvenience 
and annoyance to the employer. A domestic knows if she leaves 
her place a dozen to fifty places are waiting for her. Without refer¬ 
ences, she can take her choice of many. Her mistress knows if she 
loses her she may secure another, but the chances are some time 
will intervene, and she may not be so well served as in the first in¬ 
stance. These conditions consequent, upon a greater demand than 
supply, have acted and reacted on each other until our condition as 
housekeepers is certainly deplorable and for the past four years 
has been steadily growing worse. 

The Chinese Exclusion act of 1892 is about to expire, in May, 
1902, and the treaty regulating commercial relations with China 
in 1904. China’s ports have been forced open by force of arms. 
W r e have witnessed the horrors, resulting from her futile effort of 
retaliation, to exclude the “foreign devils,” and feel proud of our 
government which stood for peace and justice, and against the 
evident desire of European powers for the partition of China, and 
checked their keen aggrandizement. 

The commercial interests of the Pacific coast depend largely 
upon our friendly relations and possible markets in China and Japan, 
and not only the Pacific coast, but the whole United States. The open 
door of China will afford manifold opportunities for capital and 
skilled labor. This intercourse will redound to our interest. It 
is said the return of our Chinese cooks to China and teaching them 
the use of flour has increased the export of that commodity alone, 
millions of dollars annually. Because China is financially weak 
and humiliated, shall we crowd our civilization and progress upon 
her, and not allow her to come and learn of us? Shall we not 
stand before the nations as equally just and liberal to all? 

Shall we allow the comment of Wu Ting Fang, minister from 
China that “when the American people are biased they are beyond 
argument, and reason does not appeal to them” to stand proven 
by our re-enacting the ex parte exclusion law against one country 
and not against all? None of us object to the restrictions of coolie 
or contract labor, none of us to the exclusion of illiterates, and if 
they wish to make the declaration of intention to be naturalized 
arequisite of admission, very well. But let it apply to the east 
as well as the west. 

With glaring headlines, in capital type, it was announced in all 
the prominent Pacific coast papers that President Roosevelt would 
favor the exclusion of Chinese. Let us listen to what he did say: 

IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

“Our present immigration laws are unsatisfactory. We need 
every honest and efficient immigrant fitted to become an American 
citizen, every immigrant who comes here to stay, who brings here 
a strong body, a stout heart, a good head, and a resolute purpose 
to do his duty well in every way and to bring up his children as 
law-abiding and God-fearing members of the community. But there 
should be a comprehensive law enacted with the object of work¬ 
ing a threefold improvement over our present system. First, we 
should aim to exclude absolutely not only all persons who are known 
to be believers in anarchistic principles or members of anarchistic 
societies, but also all persons who are of a low moral tendency or of 
unsavory reputation. This means that we should require a more 


14 


IMMIGRATION, SHALL IT BE RESTRICTED? 


thorough system of inspection abroad and a more rigid system of 
examination at our immigration ports, the former being especially 
necessary. 

Should Be Really Intelligent. 

The second object of a proper immigration law ought to be to 
secure by a careful and not merely perfunctory educational test 
some intelligent capacity to appreciate American institutions and 
act sanely as American citizens. This would not keep out all 
anarchists, for many of them belong to the intelligent criminal class. 
But it would do what is also in point, that is, tend to decrease the 
sum of ignorance, so potent in producing the envy, suspicion, malig¬ 
nant passion, and hatred of order, out of which anarchistic sentiment 
inevitably spring. Finally, all persons should be excluded who are 
below a certain standard of economic fitness to enter our industrial 
field as competitors with American labor. There should be proper 
proof of personal capacity to earn an American living and enough 
money to insure a decent start under American conditions. This 
would stop the influx of cheap labor, and the resulting competition 
which gives rise to so much of bitterness in American industrial life; 
and it would dry up the springs of the pestilential social conditions 
in our great cities, where anarchistic organizations have their great¬ 
est possibility of growth. 

Both the educational and economic tests in a wise immigration 
law should be designed to protect and elevate the general body 
politic and social. A very close supervision should be exercised 
over the steamship companies which mainly bring over the immi¬ 
grants, and they should be held to a strict accountability for any 
infraction of the law.” 

Where can any one find in this patriotic fearless utterance 
anything that can be interpreted to exclude the citizens of China 
and Japan rather than those of Italy or Austria? Can our states¬ 
men not stand on this broad and liberal platform and enact re¬ 
striction laws, that will eliminate the illiterate and immoral, the 
vicious and helplessly indigent, and not discriminate against any 
country, but let the hand of welcome be extended to the Occident as to 
the Orient? Let the Pacific bear the immigrant as well as the At¬ 
lantic! Let the only requisites be intelligence, sobriety, morality and 
industry, obedience to our laws and loyalty to our government. And if 
they cannot—do not—lay aside bias and prejudice and listen to reason 
and argument and do re-enact this one country exclusion act, then 
may God give President Roosevelt the courage of his convictions 
and nerve his hand to veto the measure! M. C. ALLEN. 

Seatttle, January 24, 1902. 


If Restricted, 

Upon What Basis? 

So many women have asked “what can I do?” that I anticipate the 
question a little by suggesting that this is the question of the 
hour—now is the time to act—now the time to work. 

The Labor Unions everywhere are petitioning for the Chinese 
Exclusion Act to be re-enacted, and it is proposed to re-enact 
it in even more stringent terms than it now is, and I have no fear 
of denouncing it as interpreted by the courts and Secretary of the 
Treasury—as great a disgrace to our statutes as the Fugitive Slave 
Act, and we should individually and collectively, as club women, pro¬ 
test against a perpetuation of such an outrage. The Pacific Coast 
has many clubs—thousands of club women. The representatives of 
this Congress from the Pacific Coast states are only about thirty, 
and each one must have an individual influence with one member, and 
let us exert it with all the ability we have. Then our acquaintance 
in the east must be more or less, and let us through our clubs, our 
City and State Federations, wield all the influence possible. We 
know there are no better domestics than the Chinese and Japanese 
if well trained and their wages can be brought down to a reasonable 
price with competition. Let us insist that at least those residing 
here before, shall be allowed to enter again, and the wives and child¬ 
ren of these Americanized Chinamen. 

Let us not have our substance wasted, our homes suffer, our time 
and energy, and strength, spent in either struggling along without 
domestics, or with high priced insolent and inefficient ones, when 
thousands of competent willing well trained servants stand ready 
to come and do our bidding. 

You ask me do I favor restriction? By all means. Upon what 
basis? Were I President I'd sign no bill that did not oblige every 
emigrant, to show his worth and fitness before embarking which 
could be done by the Consul service of the United States. Elimi¬ 
nate the number of ports to one to three in each country; place 
men of eminent fitness as Consuls there, and guard well the emi¬ 
gration. Issue no certificates to illiterates, those who have ever 
been convicted of any crime, those who cannot show enough money 
to buy their passage and support them for at least six months or 
a year, none who show physical weakness, who would make them 
liable to be a public charge, or contaminate the health or morals- 
of the community. Admit no anarchists, nihilists or socialists. 
Oblige a declaration of citizenship upon arrival. Allow no persons 




16 IF RESTRICTED—UPON WHAT BASIS? 

to be naturalized for at least five years, and if they do not within 
one year after the period of probation, become citizens of the United 
States, be deported. Compel every minor child to attend school, at 
least six months each year, where only English branches are taught. 
Give naturalization papers to no one who cannot speak, read and 
write the English language and show a reasonable knowledge of our 
institutions. Deport or punish every anarchist who through speech 
or press teaches his anarchistic principles, and lastly restrict the 
ballot by the same educational test. Make no distinction on line 
of sex, or color of skin, or shape of eyebrows. 

Let this Republic stand on intelligence and honesty and honor, 
or let it fall to decay. 

Let a National Board of Immigration be created to work with 
state boards, to distribute economically the over crowded immi¬ 
gration of the east to the points needing labor, and by securing 
in advance the employment, have no idle, dependent laborers in 
one state, with another state suffering for lack of this same labor. 
An immigrant who .has enough to support him for six months, 
would have enough to transport him to another part of the country, 
where work could be secured and his employment was assured upon 
his arrival. It is said that last year during the harvest season, the 
farmers of Kansas boarded the railroad trains and compelled, by the 
aid of revolvers, laborers destined for other points, to stop and 
assist them in saving their crops. 

The labor unions are right in asking for national and state aid 
to disseminate labor to points where industries are suffering for 
lack of it. 

Our free employment bureaus could aid in securing places and 
when we adopt the European custom of employing no one without a 
certificate showing ability and trust-worthiness, then we shall have 
better service and worthy employees, better wages and securer em¬ 
ployment. 


How Shall Immigration 
be Restricted? 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Whereas: The expiration of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 

May, 1903, and the abuses of the present immigration laws, have 
brought to the attention of Congress the necessity of new legislation; 
and 

Whereas: The Pacific Coast interests have suffered from the 
lack of intelligent labor, and we as householders, are and have 
been keen sufferers in the lack of domestic servants, as well as 
from their inefficiency and unreliability, the demand exceeding the 
supply; and 

Whereas: Lack of good and reliable household service is so 
pprevalent that A. H. Grout, labor commissioner in charge of the 
free employment bureau at Seattle says in his report of January, 1902: 

DOMESTIC HELP PROBLEM. 

The one object which causes the most perplexity and worry in 
the homes of our well-to-do citizens is that of domestic help. Seat¬ 
tle is a young and rapidly growing city at the border of a large 
country, and far removed from centers of population, which means 
that as long as these conditions exist the demand for domestic 
help will be greater than the supply; and notwithstanding the fact 
that we endeavored to increase the number of domestics by drawing 
from the more populous districts of the East, and have been suc¬ 
cessful to some extent, yet we are daily reminded of the fact that 
many of our citizens are “still without help.” Therefore, 

Be it resolved, That we petition our representatives in Con¬ 
gress to work for the amendment, of our immigration laws to re¬ 
strict the influx of the illiterate and immoral, the vicious and evil- 
minded, from whatever country, and to admit those, who possess 
the necessary requisites of “intelligence, sobriety, morality, and 
industry, w r ho will pledge obedience to our laws and loyalty to our 
government,” and not discriminate against any country or any set 
of persons. 

To create a National Board of Immigration who shall work with 
and through State Boards of Immigration to distribute the un¬ 
employed, from the congested centers, to places whose interests 
are suffering from lack of their labor, and allow no immigrants 
to enter, whose means are not sufficient to support them a reason¬ 
able length of time, and pay for such additional transportation, as 
will enable them to reach fields suffering for their labor. 

Resolved, That we women of the Pacific Coast earnehtly re¬ 
quest that at least the Chinese and Japanese, who have lived in 
the United States, and have been instructed in household and do¬ 
mestic service, having proven themselves competent servants, who 
have a sufficient knowiedge to speak English, as well as read and 
write their own language, shall not be considered contract or coolie 
labor, but be allowed to enter the United States and supply the in¬ 
creasing and suffering needs of our domestic service. 

That these resolutions be sent to each representative and sena¬ 
tor as the expressed wish of the 


President. 


Recording Secretary. 





fioiteieimml Il&fiS woH 

\ i i d 

.encn ujo > 3« 

«i ' ■ i : . 1.0 ‘ > \ ri*: f : ' . r 

>*;• . i • ■ >. • 

; •:>'.! igj.i-:! *r . .. . *. it,. <■) \ '"‘l ! 

■ 

K.J If . . r • |i> O K ft ft! 

ti • - ‘ . •' ij f-*rj</. .. i :?! ■ . •[; • 11^-7t 

}'<!<[* 

>.i * s, m / • .r,'.;?!■ . : ill f .««•*■» •.'> jf >»;J : rivltfl 

.. ,! i .11 .L . . ; . • K(t[ 

: ’ I - . . . • . ' • i ... ■ : - •. /. •••' ; • -i-n'l 


. : ion -l J3H 0IT83Moa 

if! - E . • ■ 

• « .»•' ; . i '■ • t j* 

* ' • r • l > ,. •: 1 1 .. M.» > 

• c - J i »/ < - r, I r.fll 

Hti >• rj; . -. i, . • » qi/r 

•• ► <S'f ■ -'J :! ’ ' , . 

• r • • . 7 -.; -( • i ; < r,\‘ 

J ' ; i *' * ' C - ' ‘ • , . 

•' i--' *\ '. !ij-» ,t»> 


' r. ; / . . r • ' . ,f . ■ ., • .,<rj 

: ' ■ 
v • ' - • • Hi • 'r t- hv-i 

***■-' : f .« ' j • . n Hum .. n 

h .*<’ jin 'to ,, I 

° ° ' ; i •• I .. . i 1 • :f>ni 

.. 


fiiir/ jf*ttr. .f .) r i > . i n; •• • ' 

-r:«r 9iij rr/h l* t r s •< , : 

• Oil// c oi .• . r* t J'-. tiI . i r : ,J. ,j , m . 

f 1-1 J nf '' ' : • l ' * , ,-t : .. r . * - 

* ' 1 1 * lr - ■ J ! rtf f ,i/ i J 

; - ;i ' _ i !l ■; I; i* r . |. ,i ; . tj 

• 1 ... .. ■. ’U . .. , i a j, ■ I I. ; 

‘ ' 1 ' i p t 

■ 

j i r • lu 






... * 


. ;i . .. 






r 


BF 


Y OF CONG 


ESS 



0 021 866 757 0 



















